Ex Parte Ronen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 201812511200 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 12/511,200 146568 7590 Entit Software LLC 500 Westover Drive #12603 Sanford, NC 27330 FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 07/29/2009 Edith Ronen 08/30/2018 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 82251209 3318 EXAMINER BOSWELL, BETH V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): software.ip.mail@microfocus.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EDITH RONEN and BENNY KEINAN Appeal2016-007990 Application 12/511,200 1 Technology Center 3600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON J. CHUNG, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Non- Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to providing a calendar view that displays aggregated data of multiple events on a given day or time period and a graphical or statistical view that provides statistical analysis data. Spec. ,r 8. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1 According to Appellant, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2016-007990 Application 12/ 511,200 1. A method of calendaring events, performed by a processor of a computer system, comprising: determining, via the processor, aggregated information of a plurality of events over a time period and correlative with individual event information stored in a calendar maintained in a memory of the computer system; generating, via the processor, a calendar view of the calendar comprising the aggregated information; determining, via the processor, statistical information of the plurality of events correlative to the individual event information comprising a parameter associated with individual events in the plurality of events; and generating, via the processor, a statistical view of the calendar comprising the statistical information. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2 Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter. Ans. 3-5. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Fitzpatrick et al. (US 5,774,867; issued June 30, 1998) and Brady et al. (US 2004/0044644 Al; published March 4, 2004). Ans. 6-11. We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). 2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should evaluate claims 19 and 20 in light of 35 U.S.C. § 101 because claims 19 and 20 recite "tangible" rather than "non-transitory." We note that Appellants' Specification is silent as to whether a computer-readable medium is a signal. 2 Appeal2016-007990 Application 12/ 511,200 ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 The Examiner concludes the present claims are directed to an abstract idea because the claims recite a method of organizing human activity. Ans. 11. Moreover, the Examiner concludes the present claims are not solving a problem rooted in computer technology, but rather the problem being solved pertains to calendaring/scheduling. Id. at 12-13. In addition, the Examiner concludes the present claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they recite generic computer components that are required to perform the claims, which are well- understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Id. at 4, 11-12. Also, the Examiner concludes the present claims do not improve any technology or technical field. Id. at 12. Appellants argue the present claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims are necessarily rooted in computer technology. App. Br. 10. Appellants also argue the pre-computer world did not provide the processing capability of managing and analyzing hundreds or thousands of events, whereas the present claims are an improvement over the pre- computer technology. Id. at 10-13 (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). And Appellants argue the present claims are directed to significantly more than an abstract idea because, similar to DDR, the present claims are directed to an improvement of the technology of computer calendaring and the functioning of the claimed computer itself. Id. at 13-14. Appellants refer to paragraph 10 of the Specification to support their argument that the present claims recite an 3 Appeal2016-007990 Application 12/ 511,200 improvement to the functioning of the computer itself and an improvement in another technology. Id. at 14. We disagree with Appellants. Following the decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 82-84 (2012)), we analyze claims where the abstract idea judicial exception to the categories of statutory subject matter is at issue using the following two-part analysis set forth in Mayo: 1) Determine whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea; and 2) if an abstract idea is present in the claim, determine whether any element, or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2350. As to the first part of the analysis, examples of abstract ideas referenced in Alice include: fundamental economic practices 3; certain methods of organizing human activities4; "[a]n idea of itself' 5; and mathematical relationships or formulas. 6 Claims that include abstract ideas like these are examined under the second part of the analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner. 3 Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2350: e.g., intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk. 4 Id. at 2356: e.g., a series of steps instructing how to hedge risk ( citing Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 599 (2010)). 5 Id. at 2354, 2355: e.g., a principle, an original cause, a motive (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) and Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175 (1852)). 6 Id. at 2350: e.g., a mathematical formula for computing alarm limits in a catalytic conversion process (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)), or a formula for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form (Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72). 4 Appeal2016-007990 Application 12/ 511,200 As to the second part of the analysis, we consider the claim as a whole by considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination. Id. at 2355. Limitations referenced in Alice that may be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: improvements to another technology or technical field7; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself\ and meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 9 Limitations referenced in Alice that are not enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: adding the words "apply it" ( or an equivalent) with an abstract idea 10; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer11 ; or requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. 12 If there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to 7 Id. at 2358: e.g., a mathematical formula applied in a specific rubber- molding process (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 177-78 (1981)). 8 Id. at 2359. 9 Id. at 2360: noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [ method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers" ( quoting Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11). 10 Id. at 2357-58. 11 Id.: e.g., simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 84--85). 12 Id. at 2359: e.g., using a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions. 5 Appeal2016-007990 Application 12/ 511,200 significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Step 1 On this record, we see no error in the Examiner's analysis and conclusion that claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea of organizing human activity. Ans. 11. The present claims are analogous to the claims in Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In Digitech, the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations recite an abstract idea. Id. Similarly, the present claims are directed to organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations. We also agree with the Examiner's conclusion that the present claims are not solving a problem rooted in computer technology, but rather solve issues pertaining to calendaring/scheduling. Id. at 12-13. Because claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea, we proceed to step (2) of the Alice two- part test. Step 2 Regarding step (2) of the Alice two-part test, claims 1-20 do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. In the present case, claims 1-20 describe the concept of "organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations" using generic computer components (i.e., not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea), which are well-understood, routine, and conventional. 13 Id. at 4, 11-12. 13 The Examiner supports this conclusion by citing to Fitzpatrick and Brady in the § 103 rejection infra. 6 Appeal2016-007990 Application 12/ 511,200 Appellants' arguments that paragraph 10 of their Specification describes an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself and an improvement in another technology (App. Br. 14) is unpersuasive because: (1) paragraph 10 is not recited in the claims; and (2) paragraph 10 describes a benefit of calendaring a high volume of planned events or managing a high volume of change records rather than an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement in another technology. Spec. ,r 10. Appellants' arguments that, similar to DDR, the present claims are directed to an improvement of the technology of computer calendaring and the functioning of the claimed computer itself (App. Br. 13-14) are unpersuasive. In the present case, we conclude claims 1-20 require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well- understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Alice at 2359. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Rejection of Claims 1, 2, and 7-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner finds Fitzpatrick teaches camping a proposed meeting on an electronic calendar and monitoring a target's electronic calendar to detect removal of a conflicting event, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "aggregated information of a plurality of events" recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 17 and 19). Ans. 6 (citing Fitzpatrick, Abstract). Furthermore, the Examiner finds Fitzpatrick teaches an event appearing on an electronic calendar, which the Examiner maps to 7 Appeal2016-007990 Application 12/ 511,200 the limitation "a calendar view of the calendar comprising the aggregated information" recited in claim 1 ( and similarly recited in claims 17 and 19). Appellants argue Fitzpatrick fails to teach a calendar view, much less a calendar view comprising aggregated information of a plurality of events because Fitzpatrick's Figures illustrate a network apparatus and flowcharts and Fitzpatrick's claims cursorily teach an electronic calendar application with no mention of a calendar view. App. Br. 17. Moreover, Appellants argue a calendar view is not needed to implement Fitzpatrick's teachings because the calendar application is part of a data processing system that responds to input of a date, time, and duration of a meeting. Id. at 17-18. We disagree with Appellants. The cited portions of Fitzpatrick relied upon by the Examiner teach camping a proposed meeting on an electronic calendar and monitoring a target's electronic calendar to detect removal of a conflicting event, which teaches the limitation "aggregated information of a plurality of events" recited in claim 1 ( and similarly recited in claims 17 and 19). Ans. 6 ( citing Fitzpatrick, Abstract). Furthermore, the cited portions of Fitzpatrick teach an event appearing on an electronic calendar, which teaches or suggests the limitation "a calendar view of the calendar comprising the aggregated information" recited in claim 1 ( and similarly recited in claims 17 and 19). We also note Fitzpatrick teaches each individual computer is coupled to display device 16, which suggests the limitation "a calendar view of the calendar comprising the aggregated information" recited in claim 1 ( and similarly recited in claims 17 and 19). In addition, we note Appellants' Specification acknowledges displaying a calendar is well-known by stating "[t] here are several existing calendaring solutions available, such as 8 Appeal2016-007990 Application 12/ 511,200 Microsoft Outlook, Google Calendar, and the like, that provide for display of scheduled events." Spec. ,r 1 ( emphases added). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 17, and 19 14; and (2) dependent claims 2, 7-16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Rejection of Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner finds Fitzpatrick teaches the limitation "wherein the aggregated information comprises a numerical value of an amount of the individual events in the plurality of events" recited in claim 3. Ans. 7 ( citing Fitzpatrick, Figs. 2-3, 1:35--4:20, claims 1-5). Appellants argue the cited portions of Fitzpatrick teach handling multiple meetings, but fail to teach a "numerical value of an amount of the individual events" recited in claim 3. App. Br. 18-19. We agree with Appellants. The cited portions of Fitzpatrick teach handling multiple events for a calendar. Fitzpatrick, Figs. 2-3, 1 :35--4:20, claims 1-5. However, the cited portions of Fitzpatrick fail to teach the limitation "wherein the aggregated 14 The present application has a prior decision in appeal 2012-011833. The panel in 2012-011833 reversed the Examiner's rejection and stated "[t]he figures cited by the Examiner with respect to this claim limitation are a block hardware diagram (see Fitzpatrick Fig. 1) and logic flowcharts (see id. Figs. 2--4). These figures do not depict or describe how calendar information is displayed. Claims 1-9 of Fitzpatrick similarly do not describe the manner in which calendar information is displayed." However, we note the previous panel decided a different issue. That is, the previous panel decided whether Fitzpatrick anticipated the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b ), whereas the issue before us is whether the independent claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 9 Appeal2016-007990 Application 12/ 511,200 information comprises a numerical value of an amount of the individual events in the plurality of events" recited in claim 3. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner finds Fitzpatrick teaches the limitation "wherein the time period comprises a day" recited in claim 4. Ans. 7 ( citing Fitzpatrick, Figs. 1-3, 1 :35--4:20, claims 1-5). Appellants argue the cited portions of Fitzpatrick may teach one or more meetings for a given day, but Fitzpatrick is silent as to a calendar view for multiple events over a time period of a day as required by claim 4. App. Br. 19. We disagree with Appellants. At the outset, in our analysis of independent claim 1 supra, we find that Fitzpatrick suggests the limitation of generating a calendar view. Moreover, Appellants acknowledge Fitzpatrick may teach one or more meetings for a given day. App. Br. 19. Moreover, the cited portions of Fitzpatrick teach a 90-minute meeting scheduled for a specific date of March 25, 1993 at 2:00 PM CST and camping a proposed meeting on an electronic calendar and monitoring a target's electronic calendar to detect removal of a conflicting event (i.e., camping an event while waiting for a conflicting event to be removed teaches a plurality of events), which teaches "[aggregated information of a plurality of events over a time period] wherein the time period comprises a day" as recited in claim 4 (bracketed limitations within quotations are from independent claim 1, which claim 4 depends from). Fitzpatrick, 1 :35--4:20, Figs. 2-3. 10 Appeal2016-007990 Application 12/ 511,200 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner finds Fitzpatrick teaches the limitation "wherein generating the calendar view comprises displaying the aggregated information in a cell of the calendar view" recited in claim 5. Ans. 8 ( citing Fitzpatrick, Figs. 1-3, Abstract). Appellants argue the cited portions of Fitzpatrick's Figure 1 teach a network system diagram and Figures 2 and 3 are flow charts with no mention or depiction of a cell of a calendar view including aggregated information. App. Br. 19-20. We agree with Appellants. The cited portions of Fitzpatrick fail to teach a cell of a calendar view including aggregated information. See Fitzpatrick, Figs. 1-3, Abstract. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Rejection of Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner finds Fitzpatrick teaches the limitation "wherein individual events of the plurality of events are not presented in the calendar view" recited in claim 6. Ans. 8 ( citing Fitzpatrick, Figs. 1-3, 1: 3 5--4 :20, Abstract, claims 1-5). Appellants argue the cited portions of Fitzpatrick teach an application that helps users resolve scheduling conflicts when scheduling meetings, but fail to teach "wherein individual events of the plurality of events are not presented in the calendar view" recited in claim 6. App. Br. 20-22. We agree with Appellants. 11 Appeal2016-007990 Application 12/ 511,200 The cited portions of Fitzpatrick fail to teach "wherein individual events of the plurality of events are not presented in the calendar view" recited in claim 6. See Fitzpatrick, Figs. 1-3, 1 :35--4:20, Abstract, claims 1- 5. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner's decision to reject all of the pending claims. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation